Feminist Dissent, Human Sexuality, and the Liturgy
by Rev. Jerry Pokorsky
In recent years it has become clear that the demands of
radical feminism are fueling the continuing crisis of
dissent in the Church. Feminism's appetite has proven
insatiable, despite the hierarchy's attempts to satisfy it.
Committee documents promoting "inclusive language" and the
recent decision to allow altar girls have failed to placate
feminist grievances.
It should come as no surprise that this source of spiritual
cacophony finds expression in abusive liturgical practices.
There appears to be a close association between feminist
dissent from Church teaching since the days of the Second
Vatican Council and the persistent liturgical aberrations
found in many parts of the country. But what exactly is that
connection?
Dissent begets dissent. Those who promote the ordination of
women are often the same people who promote abortion, and
seek approval for various forms of sexual disorder.
Throughout the year the Women's Ordination Conference
promotes its agenda in advertisements placed in the
(NCR), the leading voice of
dissent within the Church in the United States.
The NCR has proven to be a reliable partner. In 1995
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger described as "infallible" the
Church's teaching that women cannot be admitted to the
ministerial priesthood; his letter in answer to the question
of infallibility was confirmed by Pope John Paul II. NCR's
thinly disguised editorial rage following that declaration
is documented in the December 1995 issues of the newspaper.
Sexual disorder is part of the same picture. In an October
1995 issue of the NCR (the issue was selected at random from
my reading desk), a group calling itself "Brothers
Together," apparently hoping to find favor with NCR readers,
ran an ad promoting "regional gatherings, retreats,
community with other conscious, loving men" for "gay men."
In the same issue, the "Conference for Catholic Lesbians"
promoted their newsletter in an ad and described themselves
as "advocates for lesbian issues in political and church
forums."
The NCR itself is also one of the leading proponents of
liturgical aberrations. A casual review of recent issues
reveals that the editors have a curious fascination with
liturgical dance and feminist "liturgies." Illicit
liturgical practices, reported by the NCR with apparent
approval, express the spirit of dissent that pervades the
newspaper.
What, then, is the underlying theological theme explaining
these strange associations? Dissent on issues relating to
women's ordination, abortion, and sexual disorder-and the
paradigmatic expression of that dissent in the seemingly
unrelated types of liturgical abuse-can be traced to a
breakdown in understanding of male mediation, as that
concept is conveyed through the Bible. It is the fact of
male mediation that disturbs feminist sensibilities and
stirs them to identify it as "male domination." Arguably,
the common thread connecting these various types of dissent
and illicit liturgical practices is the denial of mediation
as a trait. But to deny the male's role as mediator
comes at a price; it necessarily denies God's self-
revelation and his plan for the authentic dignity of both
men and women.
The mediation of Adam and of Christ
The book of Genesis reveals the male's role in mediating
God's love. After the Fall, Genesis reports that "Adam knew
Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, 'I
have gotten a man with the help of the Lord."' (Gen 4:1) It
is noteworthy that Eve recognizes her child as a gift from
God. She does not mention Adam as she delights in the birth
of her child. But it is clear that Eve actively receives
God's love, embodied as a child, through the mediation of
the male: Adam. Even in their fallen state, the first
parents recognize children as an expression of God's love,
in which they are permitted to participate.
It is clear from Genesis that the male primarily
God's love to the woman who primarily God's love.
There is a hint of this reality even in the physiological
sexual characteristics of male and female. This is not to
suggest that "mediation" in a broader understanding of the
word is exclusively a male attribute-any more than to
suggest that "receptivity" or "nurturing" are exclusively
female traits. But these categories, applied to the sexes,
are predominant sexual traits in human nature. A father, for
example, can nurture a child with affection, but he cannot
sustain a child as a mother does by breast feeding. A mother
can "mediate" God's love to her children, but not in the
same way in which she received God's love in the conception
of her children.
The male's primary role in mediating God's love is confirmed
in the mediation of Jesus Christ between God and man. Christ
mediates the Father's love to his Church: "For there is one
God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus." (1 Tim 2:5) It is appropriate that the second
person of the blessed Trinity entered into the world not
only as a human being, but as a male. Why? Because the
primary function of a male, physiologically and spiritually,
is to mediate God's love. The Incarnation confirms God's
revelation of male mediation.
Christ the mediator, using marital imagery, even identifies
himself as a bridegroom. Responding to the disciples of John
the Baptist, Jesus asked, "Can the wedding guests mourn as
long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come,
when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they
will fast." (Mt 9:14,15) St. Paul clearly establishes the
image of Christ as bridegroom and the Church as bride. He
compares the relationship between husband and wife to that
of Christ and his Church:
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the
head of the Church, his body, and is himself its savior. As
the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be
subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your
wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for
her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the
washing of water with the word, that he might present the
church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or
any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Even so husbands should love their wives as their own
bodies. (Eph 5:23-28) Just as Eve received Cain as a gift
from God through the mediation of Adam, so the Church bears
spiritual children by the mediation of Christ: "But when the
time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman,
born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law,
so that we might receive adoption as sons" (Gal. 4:4,5).
Just as Eve delighted in Cain as a gift from the Father, the
Church also delights in the Father's gift of grace mediated
by the sacrifice of Christ: "And because you are sons, God
has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying,
'Abba! Father!"' (Gal. 4:6)
It is apparent from the New Testament that the maleness of
Christ is significant in revealing his role as the one
Mediator. Only a male can be a bridegroom. Jesus is the only
mediator between God and man. According to God's design,
only a male acting in the person of Christ can mediate God's
love. This helps explain the theology of the male
priesthood. It is the function of the priest to act in the
person of Christ (), that is, in
the person of Christ the Head of the Mystical Body and
Bridegroom of his spouse the Church. The priest, like Christ
himself, mediates the Father's love to his people, the
Church. The primary function of a priest is that of mediator
in the celebration of the sacraments. This paternal
mediation, in which a priest shares, reflects the male and
paternal principle which God has placed in both the biology
and the ontology of his created world. It is a principle
that was confirmed and deepened by the mediation of the
incarnate son of God. In the final analysis, does the
imagery of male mediation matter? Might it be appropriate to
sacrifice an all-male priesthood-in order to accommodate
cultural concerns, or in the face of chronic priest
shortages? Recent decrees by the Holy See make it clear that
the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood
is a teaching that belongs to the deposit of faith; in other
words, it is part of God's revelation. Some may find this
teaching difficult. But the imagery of sex roles-of male
mediation and female fecundity-may be the key to
understanding.
"Be fruitful and multiply"
The answer to our questions can be found in the
reexamination of Scripture. In Genesis, God commands the
first parents to be fruitful: So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God he created him; male and female
he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to
them, ', and fill the earth and
subdue it...' (1:27-28)
Male and female can be "fruitful" only by obeying the laws
of nature. When man and woman engage in procreation, they
act not only in accord with the laws of biology but also in
conformity to the expressed will of God. Children are
conceived as a result of the male's mediation and the
female's receptivity to God's love. Male and female, Christ
and his Church, priest and people-these are not in
competition with one another; they complement one another in
the presence of God. The male actively mediates; the female
actively receives; and new life expresses the loving union
of man with woman under God.
Fecundity is directly connected to man's (male and female)
"imaging" of God and fulfilling his command to subdue the
earth. Just as God's love is expressed in creation, man's
love, created in the image of God, is expressed in new life.
Man discovers his dignity as a "co-creator" with God as new
life is brought into the world. And the male's role as
mediator of God's love orders and directs his sexuality
toward new life.
Similarly, Christ expects the Church to be holy and
spiritually fruitful. Before his ascension Jesus said to his
disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of
the age." (Mt 28:18-20) The Church discovers her dignity by
sharing in the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ. But the
Church is not fruitful unless she remains in union with
Christ who, as Mediator, orders and directs the Father's
love.
Just as it is the nature of man (male and female) to be
fruitful, it is the nature of Christ in union with his
Church to express God's creative love. A fruitful Church is
an evangelical and missionary Church. A missionary Church is
fruitful because she has received the redemptive grace of
the Father through the mediation of Christ. That mediation
continues to be fruitful through the mediation of priests
. So every priest can and should
be called "Father" because, by the design of God himself, he
participates in and mediates the divine fatherhood of God in
his plan to "fill the earth and subdue it." The spiritual
children of the priest are God the Father's children, born
into the Church through the sacraments.
Attack on the male ministerial priesthood
The attack (and it must be described as an "attack") on the
exclusively male priesthood is an attack on the male's role,
set out by God's design, as mediator. This has immediate and
unwelcome consequences. Since mediation is the primary
function of a male, it is fitting that the priesthood should
maintain the marital imagery established in Genesis and
confirmed in Christ. That imagery would be destroyed by the
ordination of women; it would redefine the nature of the
priesthood and would sever the priesthood of the Church from
the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Why? Because the attack on
the exclusively male priesthood suggests that the Church can
exist without a mediator. But a Church without a mediator is
a Church without Christ. Ultimately the denial of an
exclusively male priesthood breaks man's contact with an
infinitely transcendent God and denies both men and women
access to their right to divine adoption in Christ.
Of course all of the Christian faithful, by way of their
common priesthood, "mediate" the Father's love, most
explicitly in the lay apostolate. But the common priesthood
should not be confused with the ministerial priesthood. The
consequence of confusing the common priesthood of all
believers with the sacerdotal priesthood is a denial of the
essential meaning of the Eucharist. While absence of the
activity of the common priesthood (ordered to and formed by
the Eucharistic presence of Christ) would disable the
Church's evangelical mission to the world, if there were no
sacerdotal priesthood there would be no immanent Eucharistic
presence. A "headless body" is not the Church; it is merely
an "assembly."
The attack on the exclusively male priesthood is also an
attack on Adam's role as mediator. If we fail to recognize
the primary role of the male in mediating God's love, then
Eve can no longer delight in the conception of children
precisely as a gift from God. The denial of Adam's role as
mediator gives the illusion that the child is not a gift
from a transcendent and loving God. Eve no longer sees
herself as the receiver and a of her children, she
perceives herself as the . Eve is tempted to see the
child as a mere extension of her own body, a "growth" to
which she is free to either grant or deny life.
But recognizing the male's role as mediator impels man to
order the sexual act toward new life, according to its
nature. The male is a "go-between"-an agent acting between
God and the woman in bringing about new life. This agency
anticipates the reception of God's grace, which is brought
through the one mediator, Jesus Christ, to all men and
women. The sexual act was designed by God to express and be
open to new life. Man was designed to be "fruitful" and to
"multiply" by graciously accepting and cooperating with the
gift of God's love. God's order and plan for human sexuality
is safeguarded by the awareness of the male's role as
mediator. To recognize the gift of male mediation entails a
profound act of humility the male is "merely" an instrument
of God's love, not the author of love. The woman "merely"
receives God's love as a good steward; she is not the owner
of that love. Therein lies the dignity of both men and
women. By respecting God's plan, men and women participate
in God's continuing creation under his loving Providence.
The deliberate denial of male mediation therefore is an act
of sinful pride. Devoid of male mediation, the exercise of
sexuality no longer makes reference to a transcendent God.
(A "mediator" after all, is not acting on his own; he
belongs to the person he mediates.) Denial of the male's
role in mediating God's love unleashes the illusion of self-
sufficiency on the part of both male and female. Both are
tempted to claim exclusive "ownership" of their sexual
powers and to use them in accordance with their inclinations
of the moment.
But the consequences of original sin, combined with the
illusion of self-sufficiency, are devastating. Sexuality
becomes disordered and dysfunctional. Eroticism,
masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, and abortion are
symptoms of a selfish and autonomous sexuality. Given the
naturally aggressive character of the male after the Fall,
the denial of his role as a "mere" mediator of God's love
has set the stage for male domination. In general, when
sexuality is no longer regulated by God's plan, male
irresponsibility (and often brutishness) is quick to emerge.
Ironically, when the reality of male mediation is denied (in
our day, often the result of feminist activism and an eager
acceptance of the feminist ideology on the part of men), it
is women who suffer the most.
Contraception, for example, has not turned out to be the
widely heralded means of the liberation of women.
Contraception neutralizes fertility; it is designed to make
male mediation impossible. But what has been the result of
the widespread practice of contraception? Women have been
reduced to objects of lust; promiscuity has skyrocketed;
statistics reveal that the divorce rate coincides with the
rate of the availability of contraceptives. When
contraception fails, and male mediation takes place after
all, the baby conceived often suffers the grim fate of an
intruder.
The effect on liturgical practices
The denial of male mediation as essential to the priesthood
of Jesus Christ also deforms the celebration of the liturgy.
Without a male priest, there can be no liturgical expression
of mediation between God and man. Without a male priest,
there can be no liturgical expression of man's contact with
an infinitely transcendent God. Only a male, by the plan of
God, can mediate his love through the Eucharist to his
people. A community which denies the priest's role as
mediator can no longer be open to new life. In its quest for
autonomy, it has deliberately and liturgically disconnected
itself from the Author of grace and life.
This explains the liturgical disorder associated with
illicit liturgical practices. At times a priest might be
uneasy about his role as a mediator. There is a hint of this
attitude when he illicitly changes the liturgical greeting,
"The Lord be with you," to "The Lord is us." Another
example occurs at the dismissal when a priest may feel
compelled to say "May almighty God bless us..." instead of
"May almighty God bless you...." At other times, the priest
may feel the need to "jazz up" the liturgy to make it more
appealing or "relevant" to the community.
Just as the denial of male mediation is an act of sinful
pride, so the denial of the priest's role as a mediator in
the liturgy sets up the celebrant as the center of
attention. He is no longer a mediator but a presider. Devoid
of mediation, the celebration of Mass no longer makes
reference to a transcendent God. The focus is on the priest,
often in competition with the community. The attitude
unleashes the illusion of self-sufficiency on the part of
both priest and people. Both are tempted to claim exclusive
"ownership" of the celebration and to use it according to
their inclinations of the moment.
Unexpected changes in the Mass break the solemnity built up
through centuries of organic growth in the crafting of
liturgical rubrics. The innovations may be entertaining, on
a certain level, but they distract from what is really going
on at the Mass; the opportunity for contemplative prayer is
disrupted. At the very least, the priest becomes a poor
mediator (his liturgical practices render the Mass "valid
but unlawful"). In the extreme (should he fail to use bread
made of wheat, for example), he does not mediate at all,
because his Mass is invalid. A priest who takes liberties
with the liturgy implicitly denies his role as mediator in
Christ and renders the liturgy infertile.
Liturgical promiscuity
It is not at all difficult to see parallels between
liturgical abuse and sexual promiscuity. Unlawful activities
in the celebration of Mass express a spirit of disorder and
dysfunction. Liturgical aberrations are like contraceptive
sex, in which "routine" sexual behavior cannot satisfy the
most essential appetites. So there is a constant need to go
beyond the normal into various forms of eroticism.
Liturgical dance, for example, is an example of something
"new" and "exciting" in the liturgy. But rather than opening
up the community to a transcendent God, it merely occupies
the attention of the community until something more
entertaining comes along. Liturgical aberrations are also
symptoms of a self-absorbed and autonomous community, a
community without a strong father. Like a wife who has
rejected her husband, or a husband who has rejected his role
as father, the community is barren. It has closed in on
itself, incapable of new life because it has shut itself off
from God's grace.
Evidence of this barren individualism in contemporary
celebrations of the liturgy can be found in some attitudes
toward adoration of the Blessed Eucharist. The Eucharist-the
body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ-is the gift
of the heavenly Father through the mediation of the priest.
In adoration outside of Mass, a properly formed Catholic
does not worship by contemplating the work of the male
priest as a mediator. The attention is on the Eucharist-just
as Eve delights in her child, not in Adam who mediated the
child. (Of course this does not exclude Eve's appreciation
of Adam, any more than the Catholic community's worship of
the Real Presence excludes an appreciation of the priest.
But the priorities should be clear.) If the Mass has been so
reduced that many participants see the liturgy as nothing
more than a community meal, adoration of the Eucharist would
be senseless at best, perhaps even irritating.
Why would Eucharistic adoration be irritating, rather than
merely irrelevant, to those who have abandoned faith in the
Real Presence? In a Mass where the Eucharist is reduced to a
community meal, the Real Presence mediated by the priest is
denied. To a person who insists upon denying the role of the
priest as mediator, adoration of the Eucharist can only call
attention to the himself who confected the
Eucharist (almost as if the priest were the chief "minister
of hospitality" and "cook"). It would be as if Eve would
look upon Adam with envy: as someone who competes with her
for duties she might perform equally well. Eve might even
overlook or deny the humanity of her child as she resents
being excluded from Adam's activities. Consequently, in some
convents, visiting priests are disinvited to concelebrate
Mass with the chaplain because of the alleged appearance of
"male domination." Such a preoccupation betrays, at worst, a
faithless attitude toward the Real Presence and at best, a
misunderstanding of the proper role of priests as mediators.
Authentic male mediation
Is it possible to reverse the sad effects of post-conciliar
liturgical aberrations? If it is correct to say that
liturgical aberrations are expressions of the denial of male
mediation, then a parallel between sexual promiscuity and
liturgical abuse is unavoidable. For clergy and laity alike,
the answer to the question depends on a rediscovery of the
authentic meaning of male mediation in general. A father
must be aware of the nature of his fatherhood. Jesus himself
warns, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have
one Father, who is in heaven." (Mt 23:9) A "father" can dare
to call himself "father" only if he participates in the
Fatherhood of God. And he participates in the Fatherhood of
God by mediating God's love according to God's design,
whether sexual or liturgical.
The answer to the question of whether or not the effects of
liturgical abuse can be reversed also depends upon whether
bishops and priests are willing to humble themselves, to be
"mere" mediators of God's grace to his people. This may
require a radical change of attitude regarding the priest's
relationship with his people. A mediator has been given the
obligation to confer God's grace upon his people. A priest
should be aware that his blessing is more efficacious than a
layman's blessing. He should also be aware that his prayers,
offered in the name of the people, will be heard more
readily because he has apostolic authority conferred by way
of Holy Orders. Saints are heard more readily because of
their personal holiness; priests are heard more readily
because they have been commissioned to approach the Lord on
behalf of the community. So the priest's attitude and
demeanor in the celebration of the sacraments should reflect
this sacred dignity.
Nomenclature also needs attention. Although the priest
"presides" as the "celebrant," he is actively and intimately
involved in the celebration of the Mass as a "go-between"
between God and the congregation. The priest's role as
mediator preempts his role as "president of the assembly."
Without denying the legitimate roles of other liturgical
ministers, he must dismiss any thoughts of "enabling" or
"facilitating" them as if his primary role as "presider"
were to delegate duties for purposes of "inclusion" in
ministry. He does not properly "build community." God's
grace forms and transforms the community of believers
through priestly mediation. As priest and mediator the
priest offers sacrifices on behalf of the congregation. He
efficaciously speaks to the heavenly Father on behalf of the
community. He directs and orders the liturgical celebration
according to its nature. The liturgy is not a committee
meeting, and liturgical actions are not theater. The liturgy
is a representation of the history of redemption, which
relentlessly unfolds and engages the community in worship.
Through the mediation of the priest, the liturgy solemnly
expresses and orders God's love, which is received by the
community with spiritual fecundity.
As priests become more aware of their role as mediators,
should we be concerned about the emergence of clericalism?
Not if authentic male mediation is understood correctly.
When priests and bishops recognize their role as mediators,
they recognize the limits to their authority. They are
commissioned to present the Word of God without distortion.
And the liturgical expression of the Word is regulated by
the Church which insists that "...no other person, not even
a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy
on his own authority." (Vatican Council II, , 22)
The authority of priests is not their own. As paternal
mediators, they belong to the Father and they are sons of
the Church. Defined and regulated by God's plan, they ensure
that their priestly exemplar of mediation is none other than
Jesus Christ, who "came not to be served but to serve, and
to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mk 10:45).
This article appeared in the March 1996 issue of "The
Catholic World Report," P.O. Box 6718, Syracuse, NY 13217-
7912, 800-825-0061. Published monthly except bimonthly
August/September at $39.95 per year.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
Web: http://www.ewtn.com
FTP: ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
Email address: sysop@ ewtn.com
EWTN provides a Catholic online
information and service system.
-------------------------------------------------------